Dissolution of Marriage; Whether Trial Court, In Making Alimony
Award, Improperly Considered Conduct Subject to Parties’ Release; Whether
Judgment Based on Unsupported Finding of Infidelity; Whether Civil Contempt
Must be Proved by a Preponderance of the Evidence or by Clear and Convincing
Evidence. The defendant appealed from a judgment dissolving his marriage to
the plaintiff and awarding her $2.5 million in lump sum alimony, and from a
subsequent finding of contempt. On appeal, the defendant claimed that in making
the alimony award, the trial court improperly considered his conduct that was
the subject of a written stipulation between the parties that released claims
concerning that conduct. The stipulation arose out of an arbitration
proceeding addressing allegations by the plaintiff that the defendant engaged
in misconduct in managing a fund in which the plaintiff had invested. The
defendant argued that the stipulation, which released him from “any and all
claims” arising out of the plaintiff’s investment in the fund, included claims
for alimony. The Appellate Court (136 Conn. App. 773) disagreed, finding that
the stipulation unambiguously released only those claims arising out of the
plaintiff’s investment in the fund and did not encompass claims for alimony.
The court noted that the stipulation was drafted in connection with an
arbitration proceeding that was separate and distinct from the dissolution
action and that, while the parties finalized the stipulation after the
dissolution proceedings had commenced, the stipulation made no mention of
alimony. The Appellate Court also rejected the defendant’s claim that the
dissolution judgment was based in part on a finding of infidelity that was not
supported by sufficient evidence in the record. The court noted that the trial
court explicitly found that the marriage had broken down irretrievably and that
it dissolved the marriage on that ground. The court observed that the trial
court listed “probable infidelity” only as a factor contributing to the
breakdown of the marriage, along with the defendant's dishonesty, extravagant
spending, excessive drinking and abusive behavior. Finally, the Appellate
Court rejected the defendant’s claim that the trial court, in finding him in
contempt of a remedial order made in connection with an earlier contempt
finding, improperly failed to apply the clear and convincing evidence standard
of proof. The court found that it was bound by its prior decisions holding that
a party attempting to establish an indirect civil contempt must do so by a
preponderance of the evidence. The defendant challenges the Appellate Court’s rulings
in this appeal to the Supreme Court.